<html><head><style type="text/css"></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div>Years ago,many sets of hammers were double tapered. That is, there was a straight continuous taper from the bottom hammer to about note 72, which actually had a greater bulk of felt than #72 on later sets. From there to the top they tapered more sharply, so that C88 had less felt than today's hammers. I asked Jack Brand about this two years ago at the Canadian Assn. of Piano Technicians convention in Toronto. He knew exactly what I was talking about. Once,. I was able to obtain two double tapered sets and really liked the results. but the maker at the time, D, M. Best would not  supply them any more. No doubt it would have meant modifying their equipment. Instead, they threw out all but two of their sixteen hammer presses, destroying most of them, and installed heating coils on the last two. From then on the hammers were a disaster. They used a thermal setting glue and staples instead of wiring them through. The hammers were in and out of the press in fifteen minutes. For a time the felt was coming unglued on some of the hammers, till they finally got the problem under control. Staples are completely useless as they barely penetrate into the moldings, so they simply pulled right out.I am sorry to see Abel using them in their vertical hammers now, though they are a fine product and the staples are merely cosmetic.We had few choices in those days, and are lucky now there are good alternatives. I would still like to have a choice of double tapered hammers. Ted Sambell </div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><hr size="1">From: Delwin D Fandrich <del@fandrichpiano.com> To: caut@ptg.org Sent: Tue, March 1, 2011 10:42:23 AM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights <meta http-equiv="x-dns-prefetch-control" content="off"><style></style><div class="WordSection1">I’m curious; you say you would not go “that light. It’s ridiculous.” Why ridiculous? I’ve not found it to be ridiculous at all.  ddf  Delwin D FandrichPiano Design & Fabrication620 South Tower AvenueCentralia, Washington 98531 USAdel@fandrichpiano.comddfandrich@gmail.com Phone  360.736.7563  From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Dale Erwin Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:30 PM To: caut@ptg.org Subject: [CAUT] Fwd: Steinway sound-Hammer weights    <div>  </div><div><div id="AOLMsgPart_4_c39b38e0-03b2-4b34-b9b1-0d4cb378f240"><div>  My goal weight on the extreme right is what I would choose to install on this piano with the high ratio, high velocity system in this piano. I would not go that light. Its ridiculous. This action has action ratio issues so we are moving the knuckle out to handle ta bit more hammer weight and removing some lead.  I separated the molding from an original treble hammer. 2.26 grams. Very light.  Prepping this set of raw Ronsen hammers will be quite easy to take 1 & 1/2 ish grams off in the bass and 1 in the tenor treble to make the weight listed at the left.  So Ihope this has answered your question as to weather modern hammer made the old fashioned way is available for the original model of action prevalent in Pre-war Steinways<div>  </div></div><div>  </div><div>Dale S. Erwin <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.Erwinspiano.com">www.Erwinspiano.com</a> </div></div>  </div></div><meta http-equiv="x-dns-prefetch-control" content="on"></div></div> </div> </body></html>